←back to thread

Ubuntu on Windows

(blog.dustinkirkland.com)
2049 points bpierre | 5 comments | 30 Mar 16 16:35 UTC | HN request time: 1.119s | source
Show context
takeda ◴[30 Mar 16 19:39 UTC] No.11392296[source]▶
Surprised I don't see anyone else mentioning this.

This looks to me like typical Microsoft strategy that they utilized a lot 25 years ago.

1. when not leader in given market, make your product fully compatible with competitor

2. start gaining momentum (e.g. why should I use Linux, when on Windows I can run both Linux and Windows applications)

3. once becoming leader break up compatibility

4. rinse and repeat

Happened with MS-DOS, Word, Excel, Internet Explorer, and others.

replies(23): >>11392494 #>>11393099 #>>11393276 #>>11393408 #>>11393449 #>>11393546 #>>11393585 #>>11394255 #>>11394392 #>>11395372 #>>11395436 #>>11395525 #>>11395526 #>>11395634 #>>11395700 #>>11395784 #>>11396366 #>>11396861 #>>11397608 #>>11397942 #>>11398467 #>>11398629 #>>11403675 #
Mafana0 ◴[30 Mar 16 22:39 UTC] No.11393585[source]▶
Could you name a single company that doesn't follow where the market is and try to monopolises it later?

Plus, Windows is still the leader in the desktop and laptop market until today. They are facing some tough competition but "not leader in given market" is not true.

replies(2): >>11394267 #>>11395418 #
1. ssalazar ◴[31 Mar 16 01:02 UTC] No.11394267[source]▶
Uh, any company that sells niche or upmarket offerings of commodity products, for one. I.e. Apple, Tesla, a bunch of watch manufacturers.

> Plus, Windows is still the leader in the desktop and laptop market until today. They are facing some tough competition but "not leader in given market" is not true.

Their position in the server world is not nearly so secure, which is quite possibly what this move is meant to address.

replies(3): >>11394829 #>>11394868 #>>11395359 #
2. Mafana0 ◴[31 Mar 16 03:40 UTC] No.11394829[source]▶
> Uh, any company that sells niche or upmarket offerings of commodity products, for one. I.e. Apple

Without thinking much I can come up with a list of instances where Apple did exactly follow where they think the market is. Example include making phones with bigger screens [0], using a stylus with tablets [1], smart watches, small screen tablets [2], the the list goes on and on.

[0]: http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/16/jobs-no-ones-going-to-buy...

[1]: http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/08/jobs-if-you-see-a-stylus-...

[2]: http://fortune.com/2012/04/17/what-steve-jobs-said-about-an-...

> Their position in the server world is not nearly so secure, which is quite possibly what this move is meant to address.

Microsoft never had the lead in server operating systems. So they're not doing this just because they are no longer the leader. This is a proof that Microsoft is just changing how they handle competition and FOSS under Nadella.

3. mynameisvlad ◴[31 Mar 16 03:52 UTC] No.11394868[source]▶
Jumping on what Mafana said, Tesla is known for being one of the most closed off car systems on the planet. There were several HN posts over the last month or two talking about this, but they will require a full inspection to re-activate a car once it's been sold or written off, and it's almost impossible to get parts from them outside of service centers.

You chose literally two of the worst examples out there to try and prove your point.

replies(1): >>11395288 #
4. ssalazar ◴[31 Mar 16 06:04 UTC] No.11395288[source]▶
My point is that these companies have no evident interest in establishing a monopoly in whatever market they've followed. That they maintain a closed system doesn't contradict that.
5. lotso ◴[31 Mar 16 06:25 UTC] No.11395359[source]▶
>Uh, any company that sells niche or upmarket offerings of commodity products, for one. I.e. Apple, Tesla, a bunch of watch manufacturers.

SMS to iMessage?